Starting to Get It?

[Embar Angylwrath]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66915.html

Bipartisan statements always get attention, especially inthis climate. Remains to be seen how much the super committee is willing to tamper with mandatory (entitlement) spending. And how much they are willing to cut defense. I like where they are headed though.

[Lurker]

From the bi-partisan letter...

“To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table,” the letter reads, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO. “In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and assure America’s fiscal well-being. Our country needs our honest, bipartisan judgment and our political courage. Your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act. We are prepared to support you in this effort."

Considering that for a solution to succeed it must contain spending cuts and additional revenue sources, and that Obama already submitted a plan to reduce the deficit by 3 trillion that adhered to that obvious reality, and that Republicans absolutely refuse to consider additional revenue as part of the solution... who exactly do you think is "starting to get it" and who isn't?

[Embar Angylwrath]

From the bi-partisan letter...

“To succeed, all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues must be on the table,” the letter reads, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO. “In addition, we know from other bipartisan frameworks that a target of some $4 trillion in deficit reduction is necessary to stabilize our debt as a share of the economy and assure America’s fiscal well-being. Our country needs our honest, bipartisan judgment and our political courage. Your committee has been given a unique opportunity and authority to act. We are prepared to support you in this effort."

Considering that for a solution to succeed it must contain spending cuts and additional revenue sources, and that Obama already submitted a plan to reduce the deficit by 3 trillion that adhered to that obvious reality, and that Republicans absolutely refuse to consider additional revenue as part of the solution... who exactly do you think is "starting to get it" and who isn't?

That joint letter was signed by Reps and Dems. That means the Dems that signed it agree that mandatory spending has to be on the table, and the Reps that signed it are open to a revenue increase. At least that's my take on it.

[Lurker]

So when the inevitable happens and Democrats agree to cut spending and Republicans refuse to allow any tax increases we can look forward to you posting how Republicans just don't get it. Right?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Right.

I have no issue with balanced revenue enhancements, as long as they are coupled with a serious attempt to cut spending and reduce the deficit. I am wary of the Congress though (both sides) that cuts will be phantom or accounting gimmicks, and the spending won't stop. This is my main philosphical objection to naked revenue enhancements for the US government.

[Lurker]

Well, I was right. Republicans just don't get it.

The Republicans on the super-committee rejected the Democrats proposal that had $2 in cuts for every $1 in additional revenue and would have reduced the deficit by over 3 trillion.

They countered with an absurd proposal that would make the deficit larger. Yes... the Republicans on the debt reduction committee came up with a plan to trade 250 billion in new revenue for 3.7 trillion in tax cuts, drastically increasing the deficit. Of course, the lazy media reported that as "Republicans offer 250 billion in new revenue", but that's just not true.

And now, the top Republican on the super-committee has made it clear that he doesn't understand basic economics. Leaders of the GOP actually believe the propaganda they've used to dupe their supporters and think that tax cuts lead to more revenue.

To make matters even worse, Republicans are going to try to remove the triggers in the law when the super-committee inevitably fails to reach an agreement.

Republicans just don't get it.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Obama has said he won't sign any bill that attempts to remove the triggers, so the Reps won't have much success there.

There's a lot riding on this, on both sides of the aisle. the triggers are a gauranteed way to piss off both bases, so the Dems and Reps are really nervous about that. Given that this Congress always seems to find a way to stumble through the finish line at the 11th hour, I'm still taking the wait and see approach.

That said, I'm all for the triggers if they don't get the deal done.

[Lurker]

How do you feel about your Party...

a) proposing solutions to the deficit that make the deficit worse
b) believing their own propaganda and crafting policy based on the false belief that tax cuts lead to higher revenue
c) taking steps to remove or change the triggers

Because you seem to be ignoring that your Party is trying to make things worse and hoping that Obama prevents them from succeeding. And if the Republicans do succeed you'll blame Obama. That's your pattern.

[Embar Angylwrath]

There's shared blame Lurker, and you know it.

How do you feel about your party not wanting to make substantial cuts to entitlements (which as we all know have a huge impact on the drivers of the deficit and debt).

Both sides are polarized. You can say the Reps will make things worse, but so are the Dems, with their refusla to effectively tackle large entitlement cost drivers.

[Lurker]

The Democrats have made an effort to compromise. They offered $2 in spending cuts for ever $1 in new revenue, including real cuts in entitlement programs. The Republican response was the absurd offer to cut spending and decrease revenue. That's the opposite of a compromise, and it would make our problems worse.

So take another shot at answering these questions instead of dodging them.

How do you feel about your Party...

a) proposing solutions to the deficit that make the deficit worse
b) believing their own propaganda and crafting policy based on the false belief that tax cuts lead to higher revenue
c) taking steps to remove or change the triggers

Question B in particular is critical, because your Party is living in an ideological fantasy world at a time when we have real problems that need reality based solutions.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Are you referring to Toomey's counter?

[Lurker]

Yes.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You know that Dems have indicated they could go for Toomey's plan under certain conditions, correct? The Reps are waiting for the counter.

[Lurker]

Stop dodging.

Does it bother you that the lead Republican on the deficit reduction committee (and the Party in general) is pushing policy that would worsen the deficit and operating under the fantasy that tax cuts lead to higher revenue?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Do you have a CBO score on that to back up your claim?

Edit: What's your solution for deficit reduction and reining in the ever expanding debt? (It just hit $15 trillion a couple of days ago, that's about 45,000 for every man woman and child in the US.. how do you propose to pay that off?)

[Lurker]

Do you have a CBO score on that to back up your claim?

Ummmm... is this a joke?

Every CBO score of tax cut legislation backs up this claim. Bush's own Council of Economic Advisors reported that his tax cuts would result in lower revenue. And real world results prove that across the board tax cuts result in lower revenue than we'd have without the tax cuts. Tax cuts have a cost and do not pay for themselves.

So I guess I have to ask... are you operating under the delusional ideological fantasy that tax cuts result in higher revenue?

To answer your question in the hopes you won't continue to dodge mine...

What's your solution for deficit reduction and reining in the ever expanding debt? (It just hit $15 trillion a couple of days ago, that's about 45,000 for every man woman and child in the US.. how do you propose to pay that off?)

Not gutting federal revenue would be a good start. Defense spending needs to be cut. We need single payer healthcare. We need reality based growth policies, not the ideological fantasy growth policies pushed by your Party.

So again...

How do you feel about your Party...

a) proposing solutions to the deficit that make the deficit worse
b) believing their own propaganda and crafting policy based on the false belief that tax cuts lead to higher revenue
c) taking steps to remove or change the triggers

Does it bother you that the lead Republican on the deficit reduction committee (and the Party in general) is pushing policy that would worsen the deficit and operating under the fantasy that tax cuts lead to higher revenue?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ummm... didn't the leader of your party extend those tax cuts you're bitching about through 2012? With bi-partisan support? You can't lay this at the feet of Reps. Obama could have let those tax cuts expire if he really wanted to.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Oh... and tax cuts don't cause the deficit to go deeper, unles you buy into the erroneous assumption that taxes are government property, or some silly shit like the government is entitled to a share of your earnings. What cuases a deficit is spending more than you take in. And the large driver of the spending is entitlements. So one could rightly say that Dems refusal to bring entitlements in line with revenues causes the deficit.

[Lurker]

Oh... and tax cuts don't cause the deficit to go deeper, unles you buy into the erroneous assumption that taxes are government property, or some silly shit like the government is entitled to a share of your earnings. What cuases a deficit is spending more than you take in.

I'm guessing you have no clue how dumb and removed from the real world that argument is. It always amazes me the level of cognitive dissonance and pure fantasy inside the head of modern "conservatives".

Tax cuts have a cost. They don't pay for themselves. Lowering taxes lowers federal revenue and increases the deficit.

As I said a few hours ago...

Because you seem to be ignoring that your Party is trying to make things worse and hoping that Obama prevents them from succeeding. And if the Republicans do succeed you'll blame Obama. That's your pattern.

So yeah, Obama tried to let some of Bush's tax cuts expire but Republicans succeeded in forcing him to extend all of them. /golfclap

Are you going to answer the questions now? Or are you going to continue to dodge and refuse to acknowledge reality?

I'm guessing you'll choose the latter. It's what you always do. It would be pretty devastating to admit that you believe in ideological fantasies about tax cuts increasing revenue, and that you support a political party that is as reality challenged as you are. (OMG Ad HOM)

[Embar Angylwrath]

I have been answering your questions, just not in the way I think you'd like.

First... when you get a pay cut, is that a cost? No... its a revenue reduction. Tax cuts are the same thing. Revenue reductions. I think your problem (which you share with many on the left) is that you think the government is entitled to a certain amount of revenue. But that's backward thinking, and a false assumption.

What government needs to do is learn to manage the revenue it is allowed to have. The person doding here is you. Entitlements chew up the larger share of revenues. What has your party done to address that imbalance, except to ask for more revenue? Over spending causes deficits, not tax cuts. I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand.

What's your solution to the deficit question?

If I was you, here's how I'd answer. Hold the line on the Reps, even if that means the triggers are pulled (which I've said many times before I have no issue with, so I don't know why you keep asking me about them). Do everything you can to ensure Obama retains the Oval Office. Then in 2012, the cuts expire, viola, the math works.

Obama set all this up by not letting the tax cuts expire. He made a political choice that put his entire party on the defensive. Had he just let the tax cuts expire, there wouldn't be much of a need for a super committee.